Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
833 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
52-19
72-19
85-16
77-12
72-16
65-11
55-12
61-17
40-8
42-13

Federer
74-6 2004
81-4 2005
92-5 2006
64-8 2007

sport tennis history will record him as the
*greatest* athelte player ever.
 

·
Can't be bothered anymore
Joined
·
23,023 Posts
Its not really a valid comparison as Sampras was playing in a much stronger era.
Oh, come on, that is getting old ;) Sampras had his losses to lower ranked players who you would probably perfectly fit in your opinion in the current generation. He didn't have to play against Agassi, Becker, Kuerten, Stich at each tournament ;)

@ Blondie: No need to start a thread again with a comparision between Federer and Sampras. There are already enough threads regarding this topic.
Sampras had his losses over the years, but you could put the money on him at the Grand Slams. He is still above Roger in the amount of Slam titles and that's what counts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
A choke free era of lions and a weak era of chokers deserves no comparison.

In this weak era, Sampras would have lost only 4 matches in 4 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,810 Posts
Yeah Roger has perfect record but Sampras was really so commited to lesser tournaments like MM, Master Series etc all his focus was on GS he won 14 and made huge number of finals , run at Open when he lost to Lleyton was awesome. Roger cares about lesset tournametns he is type of player who needs winning to keep confidence all the time , look how bad he looked after losing to Canas etc really he is awesome athlete probably the best but there are differences , still Pete was no.1 for 7 straights years. Pete had ability to switch focus he didn't need tournaments to keep confidence sky high at Grand Slams he didn't need momentum , thrill of GS was enough for him and his mentality was unshaken for almost whole career after he become no.1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,572 Posts
who lost to Chang in the 96 AO semis when Sampras won? was it jaden? :confused:
What are you talking about? Becker won the AO in 96 :scratch: :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Then its time to sleep for me! i do remember that. The 95 semi victory vs chang just caused a small confusion in sequence as i remember sampras toying with chang in that match.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,237 Posts
Yeah Roger has perfect record but Sampras was really so commited to lesser tournaments like MM, Master Series etc all his focus was on GS he won 14 and made huge number of finals , run at Open when he lost to Lleyton was awesome. Roger cares about lesset tournametns he is type of player who needs winning to keep confidence all the time , look how bad he looked after losing to Canas etc really he is awesome athlete probably the best but there are differences , still Pete was no.1 for 7 straights years. Pete had ability to switch focus he didn't need tournaments to keep confidence sky high at Grand Slams he didn't need momentum , thrill of GS was enough for him and his mentality was unshaken for almost whole career after he become no.1
That would make sense if more of Fed's losses were at the Slams. If anything it appears that he's lost some motivation for the other events.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,998 Posts
A choke free era of lions and a weak era of chokers deserves no comparison.

In this weak era, Sampras would have lost only 4 matches in 4 years.
:haha: Yeah right!
 

·
Motherhater
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
You'd think people would've dropped this bullcrap by now but evidently not.

Anyway, Federer is clearly on the way down so all you haters have got something to smile about at last. :)
I also think it's wrong to use the 'weak era' argument, because there really is no good way to compare eras.

But how can you say one player is better than the other, when you can't compare their eras, and have no way of pitting them against each other at their peaks etc.? You can't is the short answer.

So I think citing some Fed stat vs. some Sampras Stat and saying "oh look, Federer is better" is as bullcrap as the 'weak era' argument.

But of course you don't really see too many people jumping out of their seats when they hear something like that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
Sampras is the greatest player I've ever seen play. He's like a Williams sister in that all three defy statisics. Against most other slam champs and world #1s I'm sure he's inferior in most regards, and his slam record is going to get broken in the next year or two.

But when it comes purely to watching him play he's the best I've ever had the pleasure to see play. Most people hear how boring he was when it was quite the opposite, so they use that do disregard him for some reason when Borg wasn't exactly a Connors, or what have you.

This is another stupid thread, of course, and I shouldn't waste my time posting in it, but anyone who's actually seen Sampras, watched him play at his best, I'm not sure how anyone could dislike him. He had it all going for him in the strokes and serve department, which is yet ANOTHER facet of his game completely overlooked, his strokes. Another myth is that he was all serve when he was one of the best volleyers and hit tremendous winners off both wings at the back of the court.

But, anyway, yes, Federer has more impressive stats than Sampras. But quality-wise when playing? No comparison, as far as I'm concerned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,533 Posts
A choke free era of lions and a weak era of chokers deserves no comparison.

In this weak era, Sampras would have lost only 4 matches in 4 years.
Mediter, you've already been knocked out of the ACC tournement. Sorry. :sad: You had my vote!
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top